shell scripting Re: Converting mp3 to wav

[Sriram Thaiyar]

is esr a competent hacker?  obviously.  why did he choose python?  read the
cml2 paper under www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2 and find out.  his complex system
cannot be practically done in shell script.  c was rejected by esr because
it didn't have automatic memory management, the cause of most bugs.  shell
script do have its places as does c as does python .  for example,
`install-cml2' in the current cml2 distribution has about 50 lines of shell
script (i just downloaded it) to check for a valid python version, before
it does a `$python - $python <<EOF' to the other 300 lines or so, which is
in python.  good for shell script, good for python.  but following the
"coverting mp3 to wav" thread, even a small shell script gives
problems.....

better - easier for the developer to develop in, more fun for him to
develop in since he is not getting paid, easier for him to maintain.

i wonder why you hate lisp and dislike python.  i don't hate shell
scripting...



* David Mandala <david.mandala@developonline.com>:

|  [snip]On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 17:17, Sriram Thaiyar wrote:
|   > 
|  > |  
|  > |  > - (i think that
|  > |  > not forcing the user to upgrade unnecessarily is a Good Thing.
|  > |  
|  > |  Am I the only one who hasn't a clue what you're talking about here?
|  > 
|  > 
|  > what i am saying here is this: most people program in shell script because
|  > that what is guraanteed to be on any system; but why not make the user
|  > upgrade?  what's is wrong with making the user upgrade if the program they
|  > are going to use is not only better, but handles more features and more
|  > convienent for them?
|  > 
|   
|  In response to this I'd say a couple of things: 
|  
|  1) define better. 
|  
|  Just because you like a different language does not make it better, I
|  may be running a very space constrained system and more/bigger is not
|  better. For example I have a couple of systems that have 72 Meg hard
|  disks (yes that is correct 72 MEG) and 8 Meg of RAM. I can not install
|  any more software, but I do have shell installed.
|  
|  2) define more convienent
|  Just because you like a language does not make it better. I strongly
|  dislike lisp, I do not install it on any of my systems, forcing me to
|  waste space for something that could be written in shell is not smart
|  nor is it more convienent for me, I would have to go through more work
|  just to install something I would normally never use.
|  
|  Here is an example for you: A new Linux kernel build system is being
|  worked on. It requires installing Python, which is another language I
|  dislike. Normally I would never install it but I am forced to inorder to
|  build new kernels. Is the better or more convienint for me? Hell no, but
|  it is the language that Eric Raymond likes so now we are stuck with it.
|  Though there are folks that are considering rewriting the tool in C
|  since we must have C installed to build the kernel but except for the
|  build system we don't need Python.
|  
|  In short better and convienent are very subjective things and what you
|  consider to be "better and convienent", is at best annoying and a pain
|  in the tail for me or possible impossible on a space constrained system.
|  That is what is wrong with making a user upgrade for your convienence.
|  
|  Cheers,
|  
|  Davidm